Hi, I would like to check if it is advisable to 2 Technical Managers (one for EMC, one for Reliability) in the QS. Will we be fault on conflict? Also, in the Org chart, do we have to specify the names or just appointment is sufficient?

Thanks.....

Hi, I would like to check if it is advisable to 2 Technical Managers (one for EMC, one for Reliability) in the QS. Will we be fault on conflict? Also, in the Org chart, do we have to specify the names or just appointment is sufficient?

Thanks.....

Are the roles and responsibilities clearly defined for both of them ? This is to avoid conflict at a later date.

It also depends if the organisation requires and is able to justify for 2 posts.

In case of organisation chart, it should be always with name and title

In case of organisation chart, it should be always with name and title

Thank you.... but which clause define the need to specify name and title in the Org chart???

Thank you.... but which clause define the need to specify name and title in the Org chart???

Hi Elynn,

Pl do not be so "kiasu". The standard doesnot mention it but if you want to show any organisation chart, there should be definitely name and title lah ... ;)

I beg your pardon the meaning of "Kiasu"???
Anyway, thanks.

I believe ISO 17025 is derived or built around ISO 9001 and therefore general items like this is similar to ISO 9001. There is no need to have names against positions in your organization chart. If needed, you can always trace the names through HR documents such as letter of appointment, Job Characteristics/Descriptions, etc.

Another advantage is that you don't need to update your org. chart whenever some one new is employed.

Thanks Harry. this is the point I am driving at... Updating the Org chart with staff movement is tedious.

In case of organisation chart, it should be always with name and title

I tend to disagree with this statement. Names should not be part of the organizational chart, for the simple reason that if there is a change (one leaves for some reason) the Organizational Chart would have to be continually changed.

Keep it simple and place titles only to save the headache of changing the organizational chart, in my opinion.

As for the conflict, as qualityalways has stated as long as their responsibilities (not organizational chart) are clearly defined.

I beg your pardon the meaning of "Kiasu"???
Anyway, thanks.

Hi Elynn,

I made this statement as I see that you are from Singapore. But since you asked this question, I presume you are not a Singaporean.

KIASU (kee-ah-soo) is a Hokkien adjective (language prominently used in Taiwan) literally meaning, "afraid of losing". This is a close description beloved of Singaporeans.

Apologise referring this term.